Appointments Made Within Sanctioned Strength Are Valid; Court Directs Restoration Of Service, Denies Back Wages

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar heard appeals by three employees against a Division Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which had set aside their promotions to Class III posts in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited). The appeals challenged the High Court’s conclusion that the appointments were illegal because they were allegedly made beyond sanctioned strength and that the selection process suffered from irregularities.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, held that the three appellants were validly appointed within sanctioned vacancies, set aside the High Court’s orders insofar as they related to the appellants, and directed restoration of their appointments with consequential, but not monetary, relief. The Court observed that procedural lapses did not automatically render appointments illegal where posts were sanctioned and the appointees were otherwise eligible. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The jurisprudence around irregular versus illegal appointments must not be blurred. An irregular appointment is one where procedure is not strictly followed but the appointee is otherwise qualified and the post is sanctioned. An illegal appointment, on the other hand, is void ab initio, such as where the appointee is ineligible or the post does not exist. When appointments are questioned on grounds of irregularity, the inquiry must not end with detecting the infirmity but must proceed further to distinguish those whose appointments are unimpeachable. Justice demands separation, not erasure.” The Court further noted that “[t]he appointments of the appellants vide Office Orders dated 24.04.2009 are declared to be legal and valid” and emphasised that where possible “segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity.”

Background The three appellants — Pawan Kumar Tiwary, Hemant Kumar Choubey and Amar Kumar — were promoted to Class III posts (Routine Clerk and Lower Division Assistant) by office orders dated 24.04.2009 following an internal recruitment process instituted under a standing order. An internal enquiry in 2009 reported various irregularities in a large number of internal appointments across cadres and recommended cancellation; consequent office orders stayed and later cancelled several appointments, including those of the present appellants. The appellants’ writ petitions succeeded before a Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court, which quashed the cancellation orders and directed re‑issuance of appointment orders but denied back wages and seniority. The Division Bench, however, allowed the Board’s appeal and set aside the appointments holding that appointments beyond sanctioned strength and procedural deviation rendered the selections illegal; the High Court subsequently dismissed review petitions. The appellants then obtained special leave.

The Supreme Court examined records and held that, on the facts, the appellants’ appointments fell within sanctioned vacancies (Routine Clerk: 23 sanctioned posts with 22 vacant and 50% departmental quota; LDA: 51 vacancies with a 10% quota), and that no material established mala fide, fraud or ineligibility by the appellants. The Court distinguished irregularity from illegality, relied on precedent requiring individualised scrutiny rather than blanket cancellation, and invoked the doctrine of severability to protect untainted appointees. It followed established principles that natural justice required opportunity of hearing before cancellation and that “no work, no pay” ordinarily precluded back wages where no service was rendered. Accordingly, the Court declared the impugned office orders of 7.5.2009 and 22.7.2010 to be quashed insofar as these appellants were concerned, restored their appointments dated 24.04.2009, directed notional fixation of pay and continuity for seniority and promotion purposes, but declined to award arrears of salary for the period out of service. The Court clarified its findings were confined to these appellants and did not adjudicate the claims of others who may bring separate remedies.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1000 Case Title: Pawan Kumar Tiwary and Others v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Senior Counsel; Shri Puneet Jain, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Navaniti Prasad Singh, Senior Counsel